On January 24, the US launched a second round of airstrikes in Somalia
against alleged al-Qaeda terrorists believed to be responsible for
the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Intended
to eradicate these extremist elements from the Horn of Africa, the
airstrikes instead exacerbated the chaos brought on by the fall of
the Union of Islamic Courts to US-backed Ethiopian forces late last
year. Continued instability renders Somalia ripe for the reemergence
of the same kind of militancy the US strikes aimed to eliminate. Limited
military actions cannot prevent Somalia from reverting to militant
haven status, but a comprehensive, three-pronged US approach could.
First, the US
should call for a national reconciliation conference under the auspices
of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, East Africa's
regional development organization. All of Somalia's neighbors should
be encouraged to participate, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea.
The conference should include representatives of the transitional
federal government and, most importantly, moderate members of the
Union of Islamic Courts, particularly Courts leader Sheikh Sharif,
who recently surrendered to Kenyan authorities. Though undeniably
containing a minority of militants, the Courts were composed of
a majority of moderate Islamists – moderates that the US government
has acknowledged in that past and has urged the transitional government
to work with once again.
Second, the
US should advocate for the deployment of an international force
in Mogadishu while urging the rapid withdrawal of Ethiopian forces
from all of Somalia. Ethiopian forces, regarded by many Somalis
as occupiers, are a lightning rod for popular resentment. Moreover,
the Ethiopian presence reduces the legitimacy of the transitional
government in the eyes of Somalis, many of whom view it as an Ethiopian
and American puppet incapable of instituting order on its own. An
international force made up of neutral parties is an important step
toward achieving calm in Mogadishu, but one that can only come after
a larger reconciliation conference reestablishes a legitimate constitutional
process that includes the various political factions.
Finally, the
US needs to support serious and sustained political reconstruction
in Somalia to fill the vacuum left by the Union of Islamic Courts.
Though not strong militarily, the Courts came to power in the context
of the collapsed state in Mogadishu, peddling a brand of Islamic
law that finds popularity amidst chaos. To an extent unseen in over
16 years of clan warfare, the Courts built alliances to establish
law and order, physical security, a protected commercial environment
and a functioning judicial system. In the aftermath of the Courts'
fall, there are reports of Islamic-affiliated militias striking
out on their own in the Somali capital. Until a strong, legitimate,
centralized state takes charge, similar groups will return, with
larger numbers and greater popularity. Reestablishing law and order
and a functioning central state must be a priority of the transitional
federal government and the international community. To do so effectively
will require the cooperation of moderate Courts members.
As a lesson
for the war against terrorism, events in Mogadishu show that it
is not Islamic militant ideology, but rather poverty and, even more,
economic and physical insecurity, that turn countries into potential
breeding grounds for extremism. It was not because al-Qaeda already
existed in Somalia that the country became unstable, but rather
because of Somalia's complete instability that al-Qaeda was able
to operate there. While there is no inevitable link between state
collapse and Islamist terrorism, the absence of legal and bureaucratic
institutions can lay the groundwork for the rise of militant groups.
By addressing these problems in Somalia, through diplomatic and
financial support, the US can get at the roots of extremist recruitment.
---
Khalid Mustafa Medani is assistant professor at McGill University
in Montreal and an editor of Middle East Report .
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>
At
the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates
John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate
for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates
pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their
support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable,
at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for
Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is
the candidate for peace? Full
Story>>
Quick: Who is the strategic victor, to date, of the war in Iraq?
Nearly everyone outside the Bush administration (and perhaps some
within it) would answer: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The
catastrophe of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has bolstered the
clerical regime in Tehran, while souring ordinary Iranians on
the prospect of U.S.-delivered “democracy.” The occupation
has done so by emplacing Iranian-backed Shiite Islamists in power
in Baghdad and cooling the jets of those in Washington hoping to “shock
and awe” Iran's mullahs. Full
Story>>
Libya's Fat Cat The Topeka Capital-Journal January 11, 2008
Chris Toensing
Few
dictators in the world are sitting prettier in 2008 than Col.
Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. In a region full of potentates and presidents-for-life,
his reign is supreme. Having seized power in a 1969 coup, he has
ruled his country for longer than any other Arab head of state.
And now, as wintry January begins, the colonel has quietly completed
his journey back in from the cold. Full
Story>>
